girlgeniusfandomcom-20200214-history
Forum:Housekeeping Proposals - feedback needed
I'd like to do the following and need some consensus: * Create a standard format for mad pages and a general policy for their use * Move speculation in main articles to corresponding mad pages * Move speculation from talk pages to corresponding mad pages * Remove all forum-type discussions from talk pages * Make Open Questions more useful (links to articles, discussions, and theories) In general, I'm looking at Lostpedia as a model, but with simpler, friendlier rules. Given that theirs is based on a popular tv show, they need strict policies, but that doesn't really fit our style. :) -- mnenyver 01:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC) : Sounds good to me. Lead on, MacDuff. -- Corgi 02:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC) : Yes, that sounds good. We obviously need some guidelines for the differences between "open questions" and "speculation". We won't get rid of the gray areas, but we could benefit from having standard factors to consider. Argadi 09:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC) ::Yes, exactly. There are times when a subheading in an article is more appropriate. The problem is when people want to add their own "open questions" to a main article and it's not really a question most people are asking. In fact, I'm thinking we need some kind of attribution or signing off on mad pages. Very often, people want to post pet theories (and that's fine, since that's where they go) but it's not a common belief. I wish there was a way to lend weight to one theory or another by showing how popular a theory is. --mnenyver 13:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC) ::: I maded u a templait and I didn't eated it! Template:Cleanup-Mad :BTW, does the Lostpedia have some models we can use for those MediaWiki and other templates that are hanging around being Wanted Pages/Wanted Templates? I'd really like to finish cleaning that up, but nobody's taken them on and I have no clue. -- Corgi 14:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC) :: Never mind, found and done, in part. -- Corgi 07:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Is this the correct place to propose additional housekeeping items? In older page-by-page (PBP) discussions up to and including the discussion forum for 2013-06-07 (Vol 13, p 72), there are no back-and-forward pointers for readers that want to go through the daily forum discussions chronologically. Newer PBP dicussion templates have both a back and forward links, facilitating easy navigation. It appears that the Forum-discussion page for 2013-06-07 was the last page that did NOT have forward-and-back links. Before 2013-06-10, you had to use a Chronology page to go backwards & forwards easily. Is there a way to impose the newer navigation features into the older pages? Mvoorhis (talk) 23:59, January 20, 2016 (UTC) : Mvoorhis, sorry no one responded sooner. Most of the admins on this wiki, including me, don't have nearly enough time to devote to it. I just updated the discussion page for 2013-06-07 to use the new navigation links, as an experiment, and believe I have confirmed what I thought; that there is no easy way to add the new discussions navigation links to old pages. It will take a manual edit to each page to do so. -- William Ansley (talk) 18:36, February 25, 2016 (UTC) : Thanks for checking. Mvoorhis (talk) 19:07, February 25, 2016 (UTC) : It would be possible to write a bot to do it. It's been a few years since I wrote one, but the changes are regular enough to program. Argadi (talk) 01:20, February 26, 2016 (UTC)